State v. Taylor

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 120,229


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

JOHNNIE O. TAYLOR,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; WESLEY K. GRIFFIN, judge. Opinion filed August 30,
2019. Affirmed.

James L. Spies, of The Law Office of James L. Spies, P.A., of Kansas City, for appellant.

Christopher L. Schneider, assistant district attorney, Mark A. Dupree Sr., district attorney, and
Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.

Before BUSER, P.J., GREEN and MALONE, JJ.

PER CURIAM: Johnnie Taylor was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or
defect on the charges of rape and aggravated sodomy in 1996. Since then, Taylor has
been committed to a State hospital. In 2018, Taylor filed a request for conditional release,
but the trial court denied the request after a hearing where the State presented evidence
that he was still mentally ill. On appeal, Taylor contends that the trial court erred in
denying his request for conditional release. We disagree. Accordingly, we affirm.

2

In 1996, Taylor was charged with rape under K.S.A. 21-3502 (Furse 1995) and
aggravated criminal sodomy under K.S.A. 21-3506 (Furse 1995). The trial court ruled
Taylor not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and committed him to the State
Security Hospital for treatment. Taylor was eventually transferred to Osawatomie State
Hospital in 2006 where he remains.

In May 2018, Taylor submitted a request for his annual conditional release
hearing. Under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3428a, Dr. Maria M. Gustilo, the Chief Medical
Officer of Osawatomie State Hospital performed a forensic evaluation and submitted a
report with her findings which was admitted as part of the record.

The report noted that since December 2006, Taylor has been in a lesser restrictive
environment and the interdisciplinary team was supportive of his request for conditional
release. Nevertheless, the interdisciplinary team withdrew its support for conditional
release after Taylor became aggressive towards staff. The report also noted that
throughout Taylor's hospitalization history, he expressed concern about and ambivalence
to taking medications on the belief that physicians have killed and are trying to kill
patients—although he has not refused medications since January 2018. Taylor also
continues to "present with a significantly elevated affect including grandiose and
paranoid thinking as well as fixed delusions regarding his relationships and life prior to
hospitalization."

The report notes that although Taylor is pleasant and cooperative when discussing
aspects of his life that are going well, he becomes verbally hostile when requested to
comply with medical treatments, monitoring, or interactions with staff and peers. Taylor
refuses to accept responsibility for his behaviors and denied his participation in
prohibited activities such as bullying, trading items, and being involved in altercations.
Taylor has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, as well as
other medical diagnoses, but denies having any diseases.
3


Further, the report stated that Taylor has had good attendance with group therapy
and activities, but he either participates superficially, does not participate at all, or
requests to be removed from the group. Nevertheless, Taylor has continued to struggle
with working with physicians which demonstrates poor insight into his illness and
guardedness. Taylor continues to display many of the same symptoms that were observed
when he was first committed. Taylor also has difficulty cooperating with treatment in a
less structured setting.

Within the last year, Taylor has continued to present paranoid ideation with
respect to his peers and staff. During one incident, Taylor trapped a social worker in a
corner in an attempt to speak with her without a scheduled meeting. Taylor had to be
separated from the social worker by security and Taylor then refused to take
responsibility for his actions. Although Taylor has not had any behavioral issues since
June 2018, Taylor made false accusations toward peers that a female peer had raped him
twice. Taylor reported the female peer had a knife and threatened to cut off his genitals
unless he had sex with her.

The report ultimately recommended that Taylor remain at Osawatomie State
Hospital because he continues to pose a potential danger to himself and others. Although
there have been improvements in Taylor's treatment compliance, he was recently
switched back to a more restrictive unit. Taylor continues to have poor insight into his
mental illness and physical needs. Taylor struggles with maintaining healthy boundaries
with others and has stated delusional and false beliefs many times since.

Taylor testified at the conditional release hearing and stated he has been
complying with the hospital programs and conducts himself like a gentleman. Taylor
stated that he takes his medication, goes to group classes, works a job, and does not
4

bother anyone. Taylor testified that he has insurance, has a place to stay, has some
money, and will look for a job as soon as he is released.

The trial court stated it must find by clear and convincing evidence that Taylor is
not mentally ill in order to release him from the hospital. The trial court denied Taylor's
request stating that it agreed with the Osawatomie State Hospital report contending that
he not be recommended for conditional release because he poses a potential danger to
himself and others. The trial judge stated, "While I firmly believe, as I did last time, that
he is doing better, I have to concur with the ultimate result of the staff at Osawatomie that
he is still suffering from certain mental illness." Taylor timely appealed to this court.

Did the Trial Court Err in Denying Taylor's Request for Conditional Release?

Our standard of review provides:

"'The decision of whether to discharge a patient is discretionary with the trial
court. In exercising that discretion, the trial court must consider whether 'any proposed
conditions of discharge would truly accomplish their purpose; that is, to safeguard the
patient and the public. If the court determines adequate safeguards are not present, then
the patient should not be discharged.'" State v. Davis, No. 111,844, 2015 WL 4879116, at
*1 (Kan. App. 2015) (unpublished opinion) (quoting In re Noel, 226 Kan. 536, 553, 601
P.2d 1152 [1979]).

The relevant statute here provides that committed persons confined under K.S.A.
2018 Supp. 22-3428a(1) are entitled to request an annual hearing to determine whether he
or she continues to be mentally ill. At the hearing, the committed person has the right to
present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The trial court shall receive all relevant
evidence, including written findings and recommendations of the chief medical officer of
the State hospital. At the hearing, "if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence the
committed person is not a mentally ill person, the court shall order the person discharged;
5

otherwise, the person shall remain committed or be conditionally released." K.S.A. 2018
Supp. 22-3428a(3).

K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3428(7)(b) defines mentally ill as follows:

"'Mentally ill person' means any person who:
(A) Is suffering from a severe mental disorder to the extent that such person is in
need of treatment; and
(B) is likely to cause harm to self or others."

Under this statute, likely to cause harm to self or others means that "the person is
likely, in the reasonably foreseeable future, to cause substantial physical injury or
physical abuse to self or others or substantial damage to another's property, or evidenced
by behavior causing, attempting or threatening such injury, abuse or neglect." K.S.A.
2018 Supp. 22-3428a(7)(a).

On appeal, Taylor contends that there was insufficient evidence to deny his
request for conditional release. More specifically, Taylor argues that the State had the
burden of proof to show that he is both mentally ill and is likely to cause harm to self or
others, but the State proved neither. Taylor argues that the State failed to present any
evidence at the annual review hearing because he was the only testifying witness. Taylor
asserts that although the report included statements regarding his aggression, those acts
were outdated and lacked factual details. In contrast, the State contends that it met its
burden because Taylor has recently been moved to a more restrictive area and has not
changed his behavior.

It is important to note that although Taylor's written request stated he was asking
for conditional release, he requested full discharge at the hearing. The trial court denied
Taylor's request for both dispositions. Regardless, as the statute delineates, the trial court
6

needed to determine whether Taylor was mentally ill and a harm to himself or others in
order to discharge him or place him on conditional release. The trial court's decision to
deny Taylor's release is supported by the record as discussed below.

The State submitted a report from the Osawatomie State Hospital which stated
Taylor has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and antipersonality disorder. The report
also states that these illnesses require medication and therapy. Taylor did not deny that he
did not have these illnesses at the hearing, Taylor only explained to the court that he has
been complying with the program and was ready to go home. Although the report states
that Taylor has not refused to take any of his medication since January 2018, the report
also states that Taylor only participates in therapy on the surface and sometimes requests
to leave the sessions. The report also noted that Taylor has poor insight into his mental
illness and physical needs and refuses to accept that he has any illnesses or that he needs
treatment for them. Even though the report stated that Taylor has improved in the area of
taking his medication, he still presents with a "significantly elevated affect including
grandiose and paranoid thinking as well as fixed delusions regarding his relationships and
life prior to hospitalization."

As the statute explains, the trial court must consider all evidence, including the
written findings of the State hospital. The trial court judge stated that although he thought
Taylor was getting better, he concurred with the report that Taylor is still suffering from a
mental illness. In accordance with the statutory definition, the record supports a finding
that Taylor is still mentally ill.

The trial court must also find that Taylor poses a harm to himself or others. At the
hearing, Taylor did not explicitly deny any of the specific incidents in the report, but he
stated that he would continue to comply with his group treatments, take his medication,
and continue to conduct himself as a gentleman on the public streets. Taylor also stated
that he can be trusted in the community. Taylor testified that he has an associates degree,
7

insurance, money, a place to stay, and would look for a job immediately. Taylor further
stated that he minds his own business and does not bother anyone. Nevertheless, Taylor's
assertions are contradicted by the report.

The report details numerous incidents where Taylor has been aggressive towards
staff and other patients. In addition, the report notes that Taylor has difficulty accepting
the existence of his mental illnesses. Taylor argues that many of his aggressive incidents
were outdated; however, the report stated that Taylor has had many conflicts with staff
within the last two years. The report stated that Taylor's interactions with others are
conflictual in nature. For example, he refuses to accept responsibility for his actions,
blames others, and is unable to maintain healthy boundaries with others. The report
further provides that Taylor has delusions and makes false accusations. Within the last
two years, Taylor was removed from a less restrictive environment to a more restrictive
environment because of his aggressive behavior towards staff. In January 2016, Taylor
made references to a woman deserving to be raped in regards to a female patient. Other
incidents involved Taylor punching another patient. Taylor has made false rape
accusations against a female patient on two occasions. In April 2018, Taylor trapped a
social worker into a corner and stated that she would be in big trouble if he was not
released—security had to physically separate Taylor from the social worker. When
Taylor was asked about this incident later, Taylor refused to accept responsibility for his
actions and told others that his own safety was being threatened.

Although Taylor points out that the report largely ignores his recent improvements
in attending group therapy, he does not address his participation in those sessions. While
the report states that Taylor has up to a 95% attendance rate, it also notes that Taylor
participates superficially or refuses to participate at all. On many occasions, Taylor asks
to leave the session or requests fewer treatment sessions. Despite medication, Taylor
becomes verbally hostile with staff and peers when asked to comply with treatments,
monitoring, or interacting with others. The trial court adopted the report's findings that
8

Taylor poses a danger to himself and others. Thus, there is evidence in the record to show
that Taylor would pose a harm to himself or others upon release.

Taylor's case is similar to Davis. In Davis, the defendant requested conditional
release, but the report suggested otherwise. The report stated that the defendant was not
successful in the less restrictive environment because he was resistant to caring for his
medical conditions. The defendant expressed a belief that he was being poisoned and
mentioned hearing voices. At the hearing, the defendant said he was often upset because
"'the system has done me so wrong in the past.'" 2015 WL 4879116, at *2. Davis denied
any wrongdoing and suggested that the problem was with "'the system.'" One doctor
opined that the defendant "still deals with impulsivity, anger problems, and poor insight
into his illness. Specifically, Davis denied committing any crime and thought he was
being held at Osawatomie 'for no reason.'" 2015 WL 4879116, at *3. The doctors
expressed concern that the defendant would not continue to take his medication if he was
released. The trial court held the defendant was unwilling to address his medical
condition and had ongoing concerns regarding whether the defendant would remain
compliant with taking his medication. For these reasons, the trial court ruled there was
clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was a threat to himself. The Davis court
upheld the trial court's ruling. 2015 WL 4879116, at *3-4.

The Davis case involved testimony at the hearing from multiple doctors in
addition to submitting the report as evidence. Nevertheless, like Davis, Taylor has a long
history of denying any wrongdoing. Taylor also has a history of refusing to take his
medication because of a belief that the physicians are trying to kill him. Even on
medication, Taylor continues to exhibit significantly elevated affect, including grandiose
and paranoid thinking, as well as fixed delusions. Although Taylor stated he would
continue to take his medicine if released, the report reflects that Taylor has trouble
adjusting to nonstructured environments and becomes verbally abusive when asked to
comply with his treatment.
9


In conclusion, the trial court adopted the findings in the report and agreed that
Taylor remains a mentally ill person. Thus, there is support for the trial court's finding
that Taylor remains a mentally ill person. In accordance with the statute, Taylor may not
be fully discharged and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request
for conditional release or discharge.

Affirmed.